A gal I grew up got some stupid drug charges when she was 19 and stupid, had a shitty lawyer, and now has a felony record. She is not violent. She’s almost 30, has a bachelor’s degree … and can’t find a job. Because she has a felony. Of course, there is a way to clear her record – but she can’t afford it without a job. Which she can’t get without clearing her record How convenient!

I love how all you non-felons are like, “NO BIG DEAL, man! No big deal.”

Fucking idiots.

]]>By: pwshttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631499
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:24:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631499“I’m all for her having a happy life as a zookeeper or a gardener, we shouldn’t seek to punish people. ”

Pretty sure she’s going to be a health care lobbyist at six figures. What’s the point of selective prosecution if you can’t cash in?

The fact that we have a corruption epidemic throughout the executive, legislative and judicial branches at all levels of government doesn’t magically make corruption ok. If anything, it makes it worse. One corrupt prosecutor is a problem, one million corrupt prosecutors is a civilization ending tragedy.

]]>By: pwshttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631468
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:07:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631468Hey, Ortiz and Heymann may get lucrative jobs working for those guys one of these days! (Possibly sooner than they originally expected!). You can’t expect them to treat a potential meal ticket worth hundred of thousands of dollars the way they treat one of the little people, can you?

Where do you think you are living?

]]>By: pwshttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631424
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:41:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631424“But the failures in some cases should not be used for failures in others!”

The failures in some cases, especially fiascos like HSBC laundering money for drug cartels that use human heads as calling cards and getting off with “boys will be boys” essentially means that the law does not exist and is just an illusion. The government just does whatever it wants.

Besides which Swartz didn’t actually break the laws he was accused of breaking, the prosecutors were just making stuff up. If Swartz had dropped a banana peel, they’d have charged him with attempted murder, apparently, based on their “creative” application of other charges.

Actually, America seems to be about ready for Judge Dredd style street judges.

Or maybe more like Judge Death style street judges. After all, Judge Death just enforced the law, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time… ssssinnersss…

]]>By: GregShttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631312
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:26:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631312“This prosecutor didn’t do anything odd here. ”
If offering a plea bargain of 6 months in prison, and threatening 7 or 35 years in prison if you don’t take the plea bargain is normal operating procedure, then it means that the justice system is utterly broken. It means that there’s an enormous legal risk attached to exercising your right to a trial, which effectively means that that right has been taken away.

If the prosecutor will be satisfied by a six month’s sentence if the accused doesn’t contest it, but files charges that carry a much longer sentence if the accused does want his day in court, it means that the additional charges have nothing to do with justice and are purely a negotiating tactic to compel the accused to comply.

This enormous disparity in sentencing also leads to massive perjury because many people will accept the plea bargain and plead guilty even when they are in fact innocent because they don’t want to take the risk of spending decades in prison and facing financial ruin if they go to court.

This is the system that you’re describing as being “very generous”.

]]>By: Brendan Bartletthttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631280
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:09:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631280What bothers me is that most prosecutors seem to have this “If you have a hammer…” approach to almost all situations. It seems like the only situations where they don’t prosecute cases are ones where it’s high profile and they might lose or if it has too many political implications. The only other option they seem to consider is to plea bargain it down to some lesser charge. The thought of just dropping it never seems to be an option.

I spoke to a county prosecutor at my daughter’s school who was speaking at a ‘Computer Safety’ lecture for parents. He gave an example about students texting nude pictures of themselves to each other on cell phones and in the case where one is a minor (16) and one a legal adult (18). He said that under the law this made both of them guilty of trafficking in child pornography. His idea of a “good” result was getting together with parents and children, everyone determining that no real harm was done and resolving the issue amicably. This seemed reasonable to me until he elaborated on how this really worked out.

His version of ‘resolving the issue amicably’ meant that both kids plead guilty to some lesser crime on their permanent record and got probation for a year. I asked why this amicable resolution had to mean permanent criminal records and probation if all the parties agreed that no harm was done. He chuckled in a rather patronizing way and said “Well, this way we can keep an eye on them and it makes things easier for us if another situation comes up.”

His attitude scares the hell out of me. Unless your highest goal in life is to be working a job where you say “Do you want fries with that?” This kind of thing will follow you around forever.

In an attempt to come to terms with new technology the legislature have added laws that allow prosecutors to tack on charges with multiple years added to sentences simply because the crime involved a computer. According to this prosecutor he said “These laws are a great tool for us.”

How many things *don’t* involve a computer now?

]]>By: IronEdithKiddhttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631265
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:01:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631265Well, it’s not like we can leave private prisons out of this equation, either. The point is we’re past the point-of-no-return in regards to the US legal system possessing so much as a passing resemblance to justice.
]]>By: creestohttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631199
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:38:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631199And the lobbying interests of Entertainment and Publishing Corporate Entities
]]>By: Bottle Imphttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631159
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:00:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631159I think some people think that this sort of plea bargaining only happens with the “real baddies” when we don’t have a great case against them. But there are incentives for even non-careerist prosecutors using it. An attorney’s caseload is smaller if they can convince a lot of people to plead out. They won’t have as many trials calling on their time, and trials take a lot of prep. With cutbacks at most DAs they probably have a pretty big caseload. So they have a warping incentive to try to scare the defendant in some minor theft case into pleading out for something. That way they’ll have more time to deal with the criminals the attorney views as more serious threats to society, which I’m sure comes as cold comfort to the poor bastard who’s gotten the plea “deal.”

A lot of what is portrayed as diversion or community justice can look bad as well. If you get told that you can wipe out any record of your arrest for being, say, naked in the PDX airport for 24 hours of community service if you just plead guilty? Most people wouldn’t have the fortitude to take that to trial. They’d just take the community service whether or not they thought they were guilty of a crime.

]]>By: sikeshttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631136
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:34:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631136What comes as the biggest surprise to me: nobody seems to want to go after JSTORE in this matter. True, they did not make any direct demands for prosecution and even explicitly denied that any harm was done to them, but the bigger picture is that they are sitting on millions of academic papers, produced at no cost to them in the academy and making a fortune by restricting access to them to the public at larger.

And sure, it was the prosecutors that drove Aaron to suicide, but, hey, if the material was open access in the first place, this would never have happened! After all, the prosecutors are just low level grunts/orcs/hobgoblins in a worlds where the RIAA/MPPA is Sauron and JSTORE is Saruman.

I say COPYRIGHT killed Aaron Swartz, and (intellectual) property once again proved to be not only theft but MURDER!

]]>By: wysinwyghttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631135
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:32:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631135Do you have a point besides “Americans are ignorant and apathetic”? That one’s not exactly news.

If you’re really worried about prosecutorial misconduct I would think you’d take this as a teaching moment rather than a chance to crow about perceived hypocrisy.

]]>By: wysinwyghttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631133
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:30:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631133 Saying Swartz committed suicide because he was depressed is also a sort of infantilization.

Let’s be realistic. There are thousands or millions of depressed people who do not commit suicide. Those who do commit suicide do so as a result of some kind of trigger.

In this case, it’s not really hard to see what the trigger is.

But the suicide isn’t really the issue. The issue is that Ortiz leaned very hard on this case, pushing sentences that simply weren’t proportional to the crime committed. This is in a case where neither of the aggrieved parties were at all interested in pursuing charges.

This case has “politics” written all over it. Ortiz was trying to make an example of Swartz. The use of the law as a political weapon completely undermines the legitimacy of rule of law. If you’re halfway as concerned about rule of law as you claim to be then you should be pretty upset about Ortiz’s actions as well.

]]>By: wysinwyghttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631117
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:15:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631117Consider the fact that even the most heinous criminals need criminal defense lawyers. I’d be surprised if the best criminal defense lawyers were not sociopaths.
]]>By: $8357570http://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631057
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:46:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631057people who actually know their rights wouldn’t consider that an offer, when you are innocent in the first place. It’s a gross perversion of justice.
]]>By: IronEdithKiddhttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631050
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:37:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631050And mandatory minimum sentences.
]]>By: IronEdithKiddhttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631043
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:25:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631043No. Satelite. The giant 80’s model.
]]>By: bzishihttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631023
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:06:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631023Nobody is saying that extreme injustice would have caused his suicide by itself. What we are saying is that it is certainly plausible that with his depression that the extreme injustice pushed him over the edge. Thus, those who perpetuated the extreme injustice bear some responsibility for his suicide. And since they were warned about his mental health, they bear even more responsibility.

It is important that you understand this. The same argument that you are using is how bullies try to pretend their hands are clean when thier victim commits suicide. In almost all of those cases the victim was depressed (which for bullies and prosecutors, is often a signal to attack). Pretending that the lack of certainty to the cause is a valid reason to not hold someone accountable is among the reasons why this keeps happening.

]]>By: Nell Anvoidhttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631019
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:48:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631019Hmmmm. I’d like to see some laws “eroded” away to nonexistence. Thrown off the books is more like it.
]]>By: Nell Anvoidhttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631017
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631017Actually, prosecutorial discretion is ALL about “tailoring” the law for situations. The law applies to all. Justice…real justice…is about its application.
]]>By: Nell Anvoidhttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631011
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:06:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631011Well, my knickers are rather severely bunched over this…and they are not un-bunching anytime soon. I’m a guy in his 60’s, a grandfather who has never run afoul of the law (OK, I got a small ticket at an urban speed trap 25 years ago…) I do not personally know anyone who has been driven down by this hideous phenomenon but it has had me on slow boil for years now. That’s what I get for reading the papers.

I have watched Ms. Ortiz and her crew “throw the book” at nearly everyone who comes across the prosecutorial sights of their Boston office. The prison industry should give her some kind of award for sending lots of “residents” their way for stays that would bogle the jaded views of even the most hard-assed “law n’ order” types.

Let’s not even get into the horror show of the prisons.

It’s not that there are no transgressions of the law, its that the laws themselves are just plain awful. Thank the pinheads in congress for that…another matter. Prosecutorial discretion really boils down to this: do we use every technicality we can to get dangerous criminals off the street…or do we make sure that minor offenses by well-meaning people are treated humanely in a way that serves as a serious warning.

I’d like to say that the US Attorney’s office in Boston just blew it badly here and understands as much. But its really just business as usual for this crew…and that’s why the outrage is quite appropriate.

]]>By: UnderachievingSheephttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1631006
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:53:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1631006Word. This reminds me of the times when undocumented migrants are victims of crime and you have a bunch pretty much like the asses commenting upthread here sharing nuggets of “wisdom” such as “if they weren’t here illegally this would have never happened!”.

I cannot believe some people are so incapable of the most basic empathy. The comments on this article have actually made my jaw drop.

]]>By: Will Holzhttp://boingboing.net/2013/01/17/debunking-doj-statement-on-aar.html#comment-1630990
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:39:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=206365#comment-1630990Agreed. I fail to understand why these people are held to lower standards than the rest of us. Ortiz just demonstrated that she no longer deserves any position that gives her power over others, none of us would after doing what she did.

I’m all for her having a happy life as a zookeeper or a gardener, we shouldn’t seek to punish people. But she needs to lose her influence over other human beings until she learns not to abuse it so horribly.